A defense of basic rights

Judge Luis M. Garcia's ruling will be appealed by Florida's attorney general, and applies only to Monroe County, not the entire state.

Nevertheless, the judge's decision provides a powerful and clear defense of individual rights.

It was a victory of U.S. constitutional principles over a Florida restriction that voters approved in 2008.

"This court is aware that the majority of voters oppose same-sex marriage," Garcia's decision states, "but it is our country's proud history to protect the rights of the individual, the rights of the unpopular and the rights of the powerless, even at the cost of offending the majority."

Precedents have changed

Florida's Amendment 2 (dubbed the "Marriage Protection Amendment") added to the state constitution new language defining marriage as a union of one man and one woman, and rejecting recognition of same-sex marriages. State law further directs that marriage licenses can only be obtained by heterosexual couples.

Amendment 2 had its champions, including Bishop Frank Dewane of the Diocese of Venice. As he wrote in an October 2008 guest column in the Herald-Tribune, "For centuries, governments have recognized marriage of one man and one woman as an essential institution for preserving social stability and the best environment for rearing children."

However, since that amendment's passage, attitudes and court precedents have evolved. Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled out parts of the federal "Defense of Marriage Act." Numerous courts around the nation have struck down bans on same-sex marriage, and it is now legal in a growing number of states.

Other rulings awaited

Garcia's Huntsman v. Heavilin decision took note of these changes, emphasizing that tradition should not be allowed to infringe on the basic rights of individuals.

"This court concludes that a citizen's right to marry is a fundamental right," Garcia states. "The right these plaintiffs seek is not a new right, but is a right that these individuals have always been guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Societal norms and traditions have kept same-sex couples from marrying, like it kept women from voting until 1920 and forbid interracial marriage until 1967."

Rulings are awaited in similar cases elsewhere in Florida. Meanwhile, Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi will appeal the Garcia decision, saying that in light of the wave of pending cases around the nation, "finality on this constitutional issue must come from the U.S. Supreme Court."

Bondi is obligated to "defend the state in civil litigation cases," as her website notes. We recognize the need to file an appeal, since Amendment 2 reflected the will of the voters. But we urge the state to avoid an overly political, divisive defense.

Already, the rhetoric is overheating. The executive director of the Christian Family Coalition was quoted, by the Tampa Bay Times, as saying that Garcia's ruling was "a judicial lynching of nearly 8 million Florida voters."

We disagree. The judge saw Amendment 2 for what it is: a discriminatory affront to basic civil rights.